Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 66

Thread: Good Rifle Plate options for LEO

  1. #31
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Hmmm....see post #11 above:

    "Ceramic hybrid plates: Most ceramic hybrid plates combine ceramic materials like silicone carbide, aluminum oxide, or boron carbide along with various other materials, including metal, compressed polyethelene, etc... These plates are often heavier than pure ceramic plates, but are a bit more robust, with potentially better multi-hit protection and greater durability. Nonetheless, periodic non-destructive analysis is recommended because of the ceramic elements. Ceramic hybrid designs are often used in stand-alone level IV plates intended to stop AP projectiles."
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  2. #32
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    Timely thread; I am net-shopping for a potential plate purchase, and weighing my threat profile.

    FWIW, my largest perceived threat, in the near-north-side Houston area, is 7.62x39. AK weapons are very popular with the Hispanic gang types, based upon what I am seeing. (My assigned district is gentrified/wealthy near-southwest, inside Loop 610, but I often back-up units riding near-north.) This does not mean I would not want to be ready to face more-penetrative ammo; US-59/I-69, a major corridor linking the Mexican border with points north and east, runs through my assigned district.

  3. #33
    Member John Hearne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Mississippi
    Quote Originally Posted by Rex G View Post
    FWIW, my largest perceived threat, in the near-north-side Houston area, is 7.62x39
    We bought sets of the Tencate 2000SA to replace a singe Dyneema plate we previously issued. This is the same plate as Point Blanks Speed Plate Plus. This is a special threat rate plate designed to stop 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 threats. So far everyone really likes them. They are only 0.5" thick and are much more comfortable and conforming to wear.

    While not rated for them, I bought a spare plate to test with common hunting rounds. My suspicion is that the plates will stop them but with some excessive backface deformation. I also have some M855A1 to test which should be real interesting.
    • It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
    • If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
    • "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG

  4. #34
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hearne View Post
    We bought sets of the Tencate 2000SA to replace a singe Dyneema plate we previously issued. This is the same plate as Point Blanks Speed Plate Plus. This is a special threat rate plate designed to stop 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 threats. So far everyone really likes them. They are only 0.5" thick and are much more comfortable and conforming to wear.

    While not rated for them, I bought a spare plate to test with common hunting rounds. My suspicion is that the plates will stop them but with some excessive backface deformation. I also have some M855A1 to test which should be real interesting.
    Thanks. I reckon that "excessive backface deformation" is better than complete penetration!

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    US
    I went on my own dime and purchased the First Spear First On (version w/ med pocket) combo that included triple curve level IV plates. The carrier is fine, but the plates are ridiculously heavy. Like obsurdly. If I could go back, I would have gone a different route plate-wise, likely with level iii, as I always have the iiia soft armor on at work.

    Really, a special threat plate fits my needs more directly, and may begin exploring those options.

  6. #36
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    What is "excessive backface deformation"?

    When does that matter?
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  7. #37
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    My patrol division now issues each of us a generic-looking carrier with a pair of Hesco Level IV plates, at the beginning of each shift, and of course we give them back at the end of the shift, so the next shift can use them. I am concerned that such shared plates will be dropped and otherwise roughly handled, and that, plus the weight, mean I am not likely to use them much, if ever. (If I am going to have to bail out, run to the tailgate, and pull armor from the rear of the vehicle, I think I would rather have a ballistic shield, than a pair of heavy Level IV plates.)

    I just ordered a Mayflower plate carrier, and will be shopping for suitable 10x12" plates, probably III or III+, and then seeing if I can get used to patrolling with them for a whole shift. A new circular was just released, specifically allowing us to wear our own plates, in external carriers, if they are Level III or higher, and the carrier is black in color, with suitable lettering identifying us as police.
    Last edited by Rex G; 03-31-2017 at 11:20 PM.

  8. #38
    (If I am going to have to bail out, run to the tailgate, and pull armor from the rear of the vehicle, I think I would rather have a ballistic shield, than a pair of heavy Level IV plates.)
    Not that a shield is a bad thing, but many/most shields that are designed to be carried are IIIA, so they offer little to no protection against rifle calibers. Most rifle rated shields are on wheels and weigh 50+ pounds. I've heard of a few Level III shields that weigh around 20lbs, but they are not commonplace.

    I have no idea what your threat environment is, but the three major factors in wearable plates are 1) weight, 2) protection, and 3) cost. The general guideline is you can pick any 2. Most plates light enough to be tolerable for entire shifts are some form of polyethylene, which usually are not rated for M855. If M855 is a common threat in your area, perhaps another material would be a better choice?

    Regarding handling abuse, would it be feasible for the issued carriers to be assigned to the vehicle and stay there, outside of deployment? If the plates are ceramic, I think they would be ok with the heat, although I would certainly double check before implementing such a change. It seems they are most likely to be dropped/abused while in transit from station to vehicle at shift change.
    Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.

  9. #39
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by DpdG View Post
    Not that a shield is a bad thing, but many/most shields that are designed to be carried are IIIA, so they offer little to no protection against rifle calibers. Most rifle rated shields are on wheels and weigh 50+ pounds. I've heard of a few Level III shields that weigh around 20lbs, but they are not commonplace.

    I have no idea what your threat environment is, but the three major factors in wearable plates are 1) weight, 2) protection, and 3) cost. The general guideline is you can pick any 2. Most plates light enough to be tolerable for entire shifts are some form of polyethylene, which usually are not rated for M855. If M855 is a common threat in your area, perhaps another material would be a better choice?

    Regarding handling abuse, would it be feasible for the issued carriers to be assigned to the vehicle and stay there, outside of deployment? If the plates are ceramic, I think they would be ok with the heat, although I would certainly double check before implementing such a change. It seems they are most likely to be dropped/abused while in transit from station to vehicle at shift change.
    1. I will admit that I have not yet done much homework regarding shields, but vividly recall the image of the shield used by the heroic French good guys who entered the Bataclan. That shield stopped AK fire, though I am not sure whether it was 7.62x39, or the smaller-bore AK-74 round. (7.62x36 is my major perceived threat.)

    Notably, in conversations with my fellow officers, several have said they plan to use the issued plates as improvised shields, or portable cover, rather than try to take the time to don them.

    2. AR15 weapons are popular here, but more so among good guys than bad guys, thus far, thankfully. We did, however, have one active shooter in the west part of the city, in 2016, who used an AR15 type of weapon, and did injure a deputy constable, and kill one citizen. IIRC, one of our SWAT snipers nailed this bad guy, from long range. Interestingly, this incident received less press than the lawyer, who had a melt-down, and shot-up his neighborhood, with .45 ACP, in a much more affluent area of town, in 2016. The only death was the actor, himself, hit my multiple LEOs, and no LEOs were hit.

    3. We had asked for the vests/plates to be assigned to the vehicles, when we had just one or two sets to issue to each district, but that apparently fell on deaf ears. I have seen officers drop these earlier plates, intentionally or not, and some have then dragged them down the hallway. The newer plates, that are now issued to each unit, are in smaller cases, with short handles, so cannot readily be dragged, and thus far, I have not seen any of them being dropped and dragged.

    I am interested in acquiring my own Level III/III+ plates, because they are notably lighter, and I hope to wear them. The light weight is not just a strength issue, but my gimpy knee constantly teeters on the edge of disaster, and really feels it when I ascend and descend the three flights of stairs in the parking garage each shift, toting the pair of Hesco Level IV plates. If I can show that I own a pair of Level III or higher plates, that are within their "warranty" period, I can opt to forego being issued a set of plates.

    FWIW, I noticed, while doing my home-work, that Level IV plates are not necessarily constructed to withstand multiple hits of anything, being designed to take ONE hit of armor-piercing 30.06, whereas a Level III plate is certified to take multiple hits of 147-grain 7.62 NATO. Interesting. Of course, Level III will not stop all .223/5.56, and I wonder whether some of this penetrative .223/5.56 would woodpecker its way through Level IV.
    Last edited by Rex G; 04-01-2017 at 04:55 PM.

  10. #40
    The heroism of those French cops cannot be overstated. I think their shields were on wheels though, or at least that's what I think was shown in some images.

    I'm stretching my lane badly, but I believe the issue with many level III plates is they are either poly or steel. Poly (light weight) generally can stop 7.62x39 and M193, but not M855. Steel (heavy) can stop 7.62x39 and M855, but not M193. 5.56 (and maybe 5.45?) is a bitch to stop because of the velocity. Most IV are ceramic (or ceramic combo) and are rated for 30-06 single hit, but not multi-hit by NIJ definition. The plates advertised as III+ or III++ are generally within the CONUS LE threat envelope- problem is they are often heavy-ish and expensive. Finally, I don't think III+ and ++ are formal NIJ ratings, so you need to check the ratings for each specific model.

    There is a thread on here from about 9 months ago where Doc gave me some great advice on plates for CONUS LE. Unfortunately I cannot find a link while on my phone.
    Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •